[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/implementation
Jim, You are correct that in addition to a document ID there are multiple versions of the same document docketed. In Iowa we allow a filer to submit both an original and a redacted version and they can file the redacted
version at a different time. The filings at different times occurs more often in conditions of Divorce cases where a spouse sends something that is harmful and the other part requires the document to be redacted by order of the court. Generally what we see
happening is that the CMS only returns the redacted ID when a request is made, but it can change based on the user making the request. We have also seen most courts push against any liability on the part of the court to redact information. Many of the courts
have even asked us to force the filer to check a box saying they are responsible for redaction in order to log in. I understand this is something the ECF/PACER system has implemented. Dallas From: McMillan, Jim [mailto:jmcmillan@ncsc.org]
Dallas – I am pretty much heading to the view that all these criminal, juvenile, and domestic documents should be e-signed and encrypted with the court’s key before they are submitted. Then a “public version”
might be provided (have to figure out that process for review/approval)? I was reading about “Redact-It Desktop” and that might be filter number one followed by some kind of rules based e-review software as filter number two and last a review from the CMS regarding parties/risk that
should be stored in there. Lots of fun things to build! Jim M From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
There is another issue that you might want to consider for ECF 5. Recently in criminal efiling a document was sent in. The clerk recorded the information and documents as public. The enotifications went out
allowing people to access the documents. Within 10 minutes of the recording the judge determined that the documents were not public and the security settings on the document and docket entry changed in the CMS. These conditions are a problem for some courts.
We have since defined a new communication with the CMS to send a security update back to the enotification system which needs to extend to all EFSP to delete and deny further access to the documents. We have also seen similar issues in mental health where
they need items expunged. This new communications from the CMS to the eFiling notification or for EFSP that cache documents need to be able to expunge / delete / deny access based on security changes that occur after distribution. Dallas From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of James E Cabral OK, I’m hearing an action item for ECF 5. Who wants to own it? Jim McMillan? Gary? Dallas? Bryant? __ From: Jim McMillan Thanks Dallas for the clarification. The document issue might be something that JTC/CITOC could provide some leadership on as it is a perceived and real structural issue that
either needs rules clarification or new rules.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]